University’s top donor withdraws support over ‘ridiculous’ Covid rules
RT | February 11, 2022
The UK’s Durham University has lost its biggest individual donor, multimillionaire Mark Hillery, who pulled his financial support over Covid-19 rules he slammed as “ridiculous.”
A former hedge fund manager and university alumnus, Hillery donated almost £7m to the university’s Collingwood College between 2015 and 2021. He has funded a number of facilities, including a new arts center that bears his name, according to the student newspaper Palatinate, which was the first to reveal Hillery’s decision to withdraw his support.
The alumnus has actively supported the university for more than 20 years, hosting various events, and even sometimes paying for the students’ drinks in a college bar. He expressed deep regret over what he called “a very depressing state of affairs.”
In an interview with Palatinate he revealed that, prior to his decision to “step back,” he several times contacted the university to express his disagreement over the anti-Covid measures. However, this year the university chose to adopt policies which he said were even stricter than the government’s, including a temporary return to online teaching and face-mask mandates.
“Urgency that should have been displayed to fully normalize [the university] to the same status as the rest of society has not been there,” Hillery said.
He complained that the same “pedantic and ineffective policies that place the priorities of the paying students at the bottom of the pile are simply continued and refined,” adding that he would not visit Durham again “while there is a single Covid-related rule imposed on the students.”
Hillery, who is worth a reported £165 million and ranks 743rd on the Sunday Times Rich List 2020, did not rule out that in the future he might resume his support, underlining, however, that “it’s all far too little too late.”
The university expressed gratitude for Hillery’s “support in many initiatives” but said that the health and safety of its students and staff have always been a priority.
“We have been guided at all times by the local trajectory of the pandemic which varied at different times across the UK,” a spokesperson added.
CHD Informs the FDA that the Facts Certainly Fail to Support Vaccinations in the 6 month-60 month age group
By Meryl Nass, MD
February 9, 2022
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS and EMAIL
Dear Dr. Janet Woodcock:
We write to you on behalf of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a non-profit organization devoted to the health of people and the planet. We have actively followed your work to evaluate, authorize and approve vaccines for the American public, and particularly children.
We are aware that you are likely to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of Pfizer’s BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for children aged six months up to five years old following your upcoming meeting on February 15, 2022. We are writing to put you on notice that should you recommend this pediatric EUA vaccine to children under five years old, CHD is poised to take legal action against you. CHD will seek to hold you accountable for recklessly endangering this population with a product that has little, no, or even negative net efficacy but which may put them, without warning, at risk of many adverse health consequences, including heart damage, stroke and other thrombotic events and reproductive harms.
We briefly outline why such a recommendation would be reckless for nearly 20 million children in the United States, and millions more around the world.
-
There is no COVID emergency for children under five years old. Children have a 99.995% recovery rate and a body of medical literature indicates that almost zero healthy children under five years old have died from COVID.
-
A large study conducted in Germany showed zero deaths for children under 5 and a case fatality rate of three out of a million in children without comorbidities.
-
A Johns Hopkins study monitoring 48,000 children diagnosed with COVID showed a zero mortality rate in children under 18 without comorbidities.,
-
A study in Nature demonstrated that children under 18 with no comorbidities have virtually no risk of death.
-
Data from England and Wales, published by the UK Office of National Statistics on January 17, 2022 revealed that throughout 2020 and 2021, only one (1) child under the age of 5, without comorbidities, had died from COVID in the two countries, whose total population is 60 million.
-
Another study in Nature from April, suggests children’s bodies clear the virus more easily than adults.
-
This study published in December in Nature demonstrated how children efficiently mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses.
-
Over one third of all children are estimated to have natural immunity to COVID, according to CDC’s own data. There is no ethical justification for superfluous vaccination that will put children at elevated risk of vaccine harm.
-
The risks demonstrably outweigh the benefits of COVID vaccination in young children. A study out of Hong Kong, showed one out of every 2,700 12-17 year old boys being diagnosed with myocarditis following the 2nd dose of Comirnaty vaccine, or 37 per 100,000 vaccinated. A study from Kaiser found the same rate of myocarditis in 12-17 year old American boys, 1/2700.
-
While the CDC is saying that myocarditis is a mild disease, cardiologists know otherwise. CDC’s own preliminary data, reported at the February 4 ACIP meeting, revealed that nearly half of the young people diagnosed with myocarditis still had symptoms 3 months later, and 39% had their activity restricted by their physician. We know this serious adverse event occurs frequently in teenagers. But no one knows how often it occurs in younger children. This is of major concern for babies and younger children.
5. The clinical trials for children 2 through 4 years old failed., You’re proposing to use a product and schedule that failed in its clinical trials, and you may potentially add a third dose later in the spring. This is an unprecedented proposal not backed by science. It does not meet the risk-benefit standard of 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 “the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.”
6. Some children likely will die and others will be permanently injured from these vaccines based on reporting to the current VAERS database. The latest data shows a total of 1,088,560 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 23,149 deaths and 183,311 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 28, 2022.
7. The pediatric clinical trials for the COVID vaccines were too small to detect safety signals–especially for a population in the tens of millions.
8. There are a) no long-term safety data for COVID vaccination of young children, and b) the proposal is to vaccinate children under the Emergency Use Authorization. Both a) and b) establish that vaccinating small children for COVID will be an experiment, not a standard medical procedure.
9. Unethical coercive pressure will be applied to children and their parents, as has occurred with older children and adults. To grant authorization is to abet this unethical coercion that violates the Nuremberg Code’s first principle.
10. There is no available care for children injured by COVID shots. There is no way to remove the spike protein and other toxic byproducts of vaccination, which may be produced for a considerable period of time following inoculation of messenger RNA. The science and medicine have not yet developed, and most families will be unable to cover the costs of potential catastrophic injuries.
11. First, do no harm. You are a physician who owes a duty to patients and medical ethics. If you recommend these shots to this age group, given all you know, will you be upholding your oath? If not, is it possible that your acts could later be seen as reason to remove your medical licenses?
12. The liability-free nature of your deliberations may not stand the test of time. In the fullness of time, your decisions may not have the liability protection that they currently enjoy. Under the PREP Act of 2005, all actors advancing an EUA agenda for medical countermeasures enjoy liability protection, absent willful misconduct., Nonetheless, if at a later point these shots are deemed non-therapeutic gene products that you knowingly and recklessly recommended, and which were then distributed to children as a direct result of your decision, it is possible that liability could later attach.
13. There are safer drugs that could be used prophylactically and therapeutically for COVID in children. There is extensive and compelling medical evidence for this assertion; and the choice to eschew use of these drugs in favor of a demonstrably dangerous vaccine is arbitrary and capricious.
14. The vaccines do not prevent transmission. They do not prevent infection. There is no statistically valid evidence that they prevent severe disease or deaths in children. Which begs the question: what are you actually trying to accomplish by vaccinating small children? What is your goal?
15. On August 23, 2021, FDA’s letter to BioNTech explained that neither the VAERS nor the VSD surveillance systems were adequate for FDA to determine the risk of myocarditis resulting from the Pfizer vaccine. Therefore, Pfizer and BioNTech were instructed by FDA to carry out a series of studies of myocarditis to ascertain the risk in different groups, including children. These studies were scheduled to produce final reports to FDA over the next five years. If the FDA is willing to wait until 2027 to learn the actual risks of myocarditis from the vaccine for children, shouldn’t it be required to wait until 2027 before inoculating millions of small children with a vaccine anticipated to provide them no benefit and possibly substantial risks?
16. An important Cell article in press, written by scientists from Stanford, has shown that, based on lymph node sampling after mRNA vaccination, spike protein and its mRNA remain present in the germinal centers of draining lymph nodes for up to 60 days, which is when sampling ceased. This was not supposed to happen. The demonstration of vastly prolonged spike protein production has revealed that the dose of spike protein produced in vivo by mRNA vaccines is unpredictable. FDA, however, requires uniformity of dosing. This fact alone should disqualify all authorizations and approvals of mRNA COVID vaccines.
We ask that you carefully consider all the information above before making any recommendation for Pfizer’s vaccine in the 6 months to under 5 year age group at your meeting on February 15, 2022.
_____________________________________
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Meryl Nass, M.D.
Unfortunately, the footnotes are missing from this version. They can be found at:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/CHD-Letter-to-FDA__EUA-Under-5_2-9-2022-1.pdf
Canadian Truckers and Supporters Staying the Course
By Stephen Lendman | February 13, 2022
Thousands of Canadian truckers and supporters continue protesting against draconian Trudeau regime health and freedom-destroying mandates.
Ongoing since January 29 in Ottawa, they continued overnight Saturday for the 6th day along the Ambassador Bridge linking Windsor, Ontario to Detroit — defying a court order to disperse and state of emergency threats by Ontario premier Doug Ford.
Things are fluid and quick-changing.
After things eased somewhat along the Ambassador Bridge, other protesters arrived on the Canadian side to block free passage.
According to news reports, a face-off with police sent to clear the bridge included no physical confrontations as of Saturday evening.
Disruptions also affect border crossings from Coutts, Alberta to Montana and Surrey, British Columbia to Washington state.
Late Saturday, a Trudeau regime statement said “border crossings cannot, and will not, remain closed, and that all options are on the table.”
Vehicles continue to block the Ambassador Bridge, Toronto Star reporter Jacob Lorinc tweeting:
“Police moving up slowly, but very slowly. Lots of protesters here.”
“(V)ehicles are still blocking lanes that lead to the bridge. (It’s) closed.”
“Not clear when it will reopen.”
“No arrests made as far as I can tell.”
Al Jazeera reported that “(a) crowd exceeding 10,000 people made their way between the trucks towards (Ottawa’s) parliament building.”
On Saturday, “many vehicles” along the road from Montreal to Ottawa displayed “Freedom” signs.
CTV News said “(p)rotests continue across Canada.”
At the Ambassador Bridge, police and protesters remain in “standoff… with more protesters arriving throughout the” day on Saturday.
In Surrey, British Columbia, “multiple commercial trucks… broke through an RCMP barricade on the Pacific Highway while following protesters marching to the border Saturday afternoon.”
The main route to Blaine, Washington remained closed.
No violence, injuries or arrests were reported.
Resolution of what’s going on in Canada nationwide requires the Trudeau regime to rescind flu/covid mandates across the board.
Protests continue because he refuses to end what shouldn’t have been imposed in the first place.
One protester along the Ambassador Bridge expressed the sentiment of all others across Canada, saying:
“We’re sick and tired of mandates.”
Ending them is the only acceptable option.
In New Brunswick, an anti-mandates video by Canadian army major Stephen Chledowski went viral online, saying the following:
“I am calling on my military and cops comrades to now stand up and safeguard your loved ones against this government-forced medical tyranny.”
“For 2 years our elected government officials have been using the strategies of fear, coercion and financial, intimidation and physical altercation against us to attain compliance for specific repeated medical procedures.”
The Trudeau regime and provincial officials are using “bullying tactics of fear, intimidation, coercion and financial and physical violence.”
Like the US Constitution’s First Amendment affirmation of free expression, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedom mandates it for all the nation’s people.
According to the rule of law in both countries, it cannot legally be denied to anyone.
So-called free expression limits on what Canadian military personnel may say publicly breach the law of the land.
Given how Canada operates extrajudicially on all things flu/covid related, Chledowski could face stiff disciplinary action for the “crime” of truth-telling about health and freedom-destroying mandates.
In December 2020, in full military attire, Officer Cadet Ladislas Kenderesi spoke out publicly against what he called “killer” jabs.
In response, he was charged with what CTV News called “a mutiny-related offense.”
As in the US and throughout the West, democracy in Canada is pure fantasy. It’s for the privileged few alone at the expense of most others.
The rule of law is what ruling regimes say it is, the real thing be damned when interfering with their draconian policies.
Health and freedom-destroying mandates revealed reality about how Canada is ill-governed.
The only option for protesters is staying the course for restoration of what Trudeau regime hardliners abolished in deference to wealth, power and privilege by harming the vast majority of Canadians — on the phony pretext of protecting them.
Telling the truth in the age of sponsored science why so many scientific studies refute their own conclusions
el gato malo – bad cattitude – february 13, 2022
in the age of government sponsored science driven by grants, sinecure, and sponsorship, scientists face a difficult set of choices.
they must, if they wish to continue receiving the largess of the gold-givers toe the party line of state or commercially sponsored science. he who has paid the piper demands to call the tune and producing work that does not suit “the narrative” is career suicide. your funding will dry up. so may your position, your prospects for advancement, and even your tenure. you will not be asked to join committees, interviewed for articles, citied, or supported. you may be outright attacked. i discuss this in more depth HERE.
but scientists also face another constraint: they need to be accurate. they need to run good experiments, collect good data, and relay it faithfully. if they do not, they will get called out and revealed as incompetents or frauds. this too will end one’s career as it means that not only are you doing no useful work (apart from to propogandists) but will reveal that you have sold out integrity for lucre and that is the end of peers taking you seriously. you play for team lysenko now.
the need to thread this needle and appease and please both demands has led to an odd practice:
many times, the claims made in the abstract or in the conclusions are not supported by the actual data.
i know this sounds a little bizarre, but as someone who reads perhaps 1000 such papers a year, allow me to assure you, it is stunningly common in any politically loaded sphere. (and you would be amazed how many are politically loaded. it need not be government pushing it. watching geneticists tie their conclusions in knots to claim that you can breed horses for speed and endurance or dogs for intelligence but that of course there is no such thing as eugenics in humans because that would be unspeakable despite your having just proved that there is in fact, eugenics in humans is really quite something. they go to astounding lengths in the introductions of their books to disavow what they are about to prove.)
this odd compromise sort of works, but mostly, it doesn’t.
it gives those who fund studies and the journals who curate them for ideological purity their bone. the abstract says “X means Y.” this is what they want for the press releases and for waving around.
it also puts the actual data out into the world. this is what researchers, both those who did the work and those who will read it in detail, actually need. they can see the facts and will not be gulled in by the claims in the conclusion as they are adept at drawing their own conclusions.
this leads to the weird outcome of the public and the politicians frequently having one idea about what a study says and the experts in the field having more or less the opposite take.
the “experts” all know what the data means and why they are not allowed to say it. it works a bit like the foils used by renaissance dialogue writers to ape at being fools while presenting the actual case being made while the “authorities” presented the “narrative” and were made fools of by those able to read between the lines.
in the age of the internet, this sets up a bizarre and deeply frustrating conflict: those who can and do really read studies are constantly having to pick them apart and explain to the “google and spam” crowd who just selectively confirm their biases and skim the lead paragraph of a study why the study they just cited does not, in fact, say what they are claiming it does.
and, of course, trying to convince someone that the authors deliberately misstated the facts in the summary is like trying to teach a new trick to the very oldest of dogs. they are just not having it.
this has created a rancorous and dangerously stupid level of debate and an impossible burden for any one individual to carry. it takes 10 seconds to search, skim, and spam with a study you never read and start yelling “peer review!” over and over as if that means something.
it can take hours to pick the study apart and see if it really does support the conclusions stated in the summary and then hours more to convince someone who has not even read it (and probably does not know how). that’s unwinnable. it’s like sisyphus getting and additional rock to push back up the hill every time he reaches the top. pretty soon it’s 20 boulders and nothing is going anywhere.
fortunately, the internet age has produced a large group of folks interested in picking these studies apart and publishing their takes. and we form communities and help one another. so no one has to do ALL the work when the CDC publishes yet more self refuting “wave around” data.
this is, in fact, what real peer review is. it’s supposed to be hostile and to pick holes.
the upshot here is that you should be very careful taking studies you have not actually read at face value.
you need to read them. thoroughly. waving them around as if you did when you have not is a recipe for being wrong.
let’s take a simple and straightforward recent example:
this article is being used to push boosters. this is because the authors said this:
i have not spoken to them. perhaps they believe this, perhaps they do not but felt they had to say it or be pariahs. i have no special insight there. but i can read data.
so let’s see what the data says.
this was a big study, but also a retrospective study with post facto matching. the matching was by age, sex, and municipality. it is tainted by the ever present “we counted no one as vaccinated until 14 days post dose 2” issue which will inevitably deeply favor vaccine efficacy through a mathematical rig job (especially in the short run) and can even produce it from zero VE and looks to have had large effects in canadian data.
so we have some ingrained bayesian issues with our cohorts that may inject serious bias toward making vaccines look effective.
the data itself was rendered quite challenging to read. (heavy text, few graphics)
it was also truncated in a somewhat misleading fashion.
if you read it closely, you’ll see that even the longest follow ups on infection data were lumped after 210 days, several were 180 (before it really gets bad) others were 120.
this is just typical bayesian datacrime and presentation bias as we’ve seen so many times before. and it does not really speak to the interesting issue of “are the vaccines preventing severity?”
this is, in fact, omitted from the study. but they did collect the data, they just made it REALLY difficult to find. you need to go HERE to the supplemental materials page. you then need to download the actual PDF as the data is not on the webpage. then you need to go to the very last page of that supplement.
those who do so (and i’m guessing we’re down to a very few folks by then) will be rewarded with this graph:
and this one has profound and powerful implications.
- it shows that efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization and death also wanes very rapidly
- it shows that this efficacy keeps waning over time
- it shows that it could easily be strongly negative based on the huge downside bias to the error range (gray shaded area)
- and it shows that this data is of very low quality in terms of error magnitude.
at 9 months, midline expectation is ~15% reduction. (i’m eyeballing) but look at the confidence interval: it runs from (ballpark) +63% to -90%. that is not a useful range upon which to base anything. it implies that there is a very strong chance that vaccination is associated with greatly increased risk of severe outcomes for a great many people.
this pattern implies that boosters are likely, at best, a treadmill that will need constant refreshing, likely 3X a year or so, if you want to sustain efficacy. vaccine fade after 4 months degrades rapidly. (and frankly, the first 4 could well be an illusory halo generated by the dose 2 +14 vaccinated definition as linked above)
given the adverse events profile and the lack of severity of omicron this seems a truly odious proposition that looks likely to fail for most people on any sort or risk/benefit analysis. it is telling that the researchers here did not even attempt to take risk reward into account before claiming:
“The results strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third vaccine dose as a booster.”
what is also telling is the other part of the data required to make this claim:
do boosters work? do they refresh clinical immunity and mitigate severity? could they ever have done so and is this data even relevant with the emergence of omicron that seems to be at least an escape variant and far more likely a full blown hoskins effect/OAS variant that is enhanced, not mitigated by the vaccines.
because the evidence there looks quite persuasive that they do not.
note that all this data is from before oct 4th 2021, so it has no omicron impact whatsoever in it. claiming it bolsters the case for boosters without presenting evidence of booster efficacy on this new variant makes their claim feel like a rote bolt on, placed there to mollify and placate patrons and authorities.
there is absolutely no data here to validate that point.
the study does not even speak to the data that would be needed to make such a claim.
“efficacy wanes, so boost” is not a valid argument unless we know that boosters work, yet any evidence that boosters actually do anything to help is absent and all past data shows such rapid fade on efficacy vs severity as to make boosters a poor appearing proposition.
there is no data whatsoever on the new variant.
and boosters are sure not seeming to help in the UK. omi is driving rates of infection in the boosted at roughly double the rate of the unvaxxed.
the swedish study uses possibly irrelevant data and not only fails to prove out the ostensible interpretation, but winds up far more consistent with the conclusion that boosters are a waste of time and will provide ephemeral, at best, protection.
having seen this, go back and read the “interpretation” again.
now do you see my point about “the abstract says one thing while the data says another?”
i mean, they literally buried the lede at the very end of a hard to find supplement. it’s like putting the actual object of a video game inside of an easter egg.
most vexing, this easter egg also shows that vaccines may be making immunity to severe covid outcomes significantly worse.
call me mister suspicious, but i have a hunch that’s WHY they put it there.
let’s explore that a bit further:
what would be REALLY interesting is to see how this population distribution looks.
if it barbells then we likely have a serious confound going on. we really have no idea what the prior incidence of covid was in those who got vaccinated. one could expect it to be quite meaningful.
if vaccines look like they are working well in some and are strongly negative in others with not much in the middle (this is suggested but not proven by the skew in the confidence interval) then i would posit that the most likely explanation is that what looks like VE is actually naturally acquired immunity.
if you had covid then got vaxxed, vaccines look like they work, especially as the high risk groups got vaxxed more and these same groups likely had higher risk of prior infection. this gets magnified by the 2 week worry window of TLR suppression post vaccination that results in well documented decreases in immune function and a doubling of the rate of covid contraction in that period vs unvaxxed.
but if you got vaxxed without having had covid, it could be acting as an immunosuppressant or driving hoskins effect/OAS antigenic fixation that makes you more vulnerable.
this, along with all cause deaths in vaxxed vs unvaxxed measured from the moment you got your first jab is some data i’d really like to see.
it’s continuing non-availability certainly frustrating and likely telling. this data absolutely exists.
why we are not getting to see it is fast becoming a question too big to ignore.
Over half the deaths seen by this funeral director were likely caused by the COVID vaccines
By Steve Kirsch | February 7, 2022
He is not alone in seeing this. All his other embalmer friends see it too. All of them. The only possible explanation: the COVID vaccines are killing massive numbers of previously healthy people.
Fifteen embalmers are all seeing odd fatal clotting in people that first started in 2021. As many as 65% of cases are affected. Just like the DMED data, this evidence is being totally ignored by the mainstream press and medical community as well as the CDC and other HHS agencies. The only explanation that fits all the facts is that the vaccines are killing Americans in massive numbers and should be immediately halted.
Meet Richard Hirschman, an embalmer in Alabama with over 20 years experience
Embalmer reveals 93% of cases have deadly clots
Richard Hirschman is a funeral director who spotted really strange clots in dead people after the vaccines rolled out. He was interviewed by Jane Ruby on the Stew Peters Show. At nearly 800,000 views on Rumble alone, his interview is one of the most popular episodes in Stew Peters Show history.
I was originally introduced to Richard via one of my contacts. Richard has been embalming people for more than 20 years. He lives in Alabama.
Here’s my 53 minute interview where we get into the profound implications of what Richard found: that the vaccines are likely killing around 65% of the cases he is seeing today. There is simply no other possible explanation that fits the evidence.
If you thought the COVID shots were safe and effective before the video, and you still have a working brain, I’m pretty sure this video will change your thinking because there is only one possible conclusion: the COVID vaccines are killing massive numbers of people and nobody is investigating.
Here are some of the most important things I learned from Richard:
- He started noticing the strange clots around May or June 2021. He’d never seen anything like it before in his life. However, he admits they could have started much earlier and he just never noticed them before because he was very busy.
- He is not aware of any cases where the strange clots were seen in unvaccinated cases(except for one unvaccinated person who received a transfusion)
- He started formally tracking the number of patients with the strange clots in late 2021.
- He says currently over 50% of the bodies he embalms have the strange clots which he uniquely associates with the vaccines/boosters. This is the bombshell. The CDC says deaths from the vaccine are 0% and this embalmer, who has no conflicts of interest, says it is now over 50% of the cases he sees. They can’t both be telling the truth. One of them is lying.
- In Jan 2022, 37 out of 57 (65% of all cases) had these suspicious clots. That’s huge.
- His embalming volume varies by day. Sometimes it is one a day, other days it can be up to 6 or 7. He estimates he does an average of 2 per day, which is over 600 bodies a year. So while these aren’t huge numbers, the numbers are large enough that it is unlikely that the effect they are seeing is just due to small numbers.
- He contracts out his services to a variety of funeral homes. In 2020, he’d see a lot of COVID deaths because other embalmers didn’t want to touch those cases. Richard is COVID recovered so he had no problem handling those cases. Now, however, that fear has greatly subsided so now he is seeing more of a representative sample (i.e., unbiased) of people who die. So his “over 50% of deaths” figure is only slightly exaggerated from an embalmer seeing an “unfiltered” set of people.
- Younger people tend to be cremated, so he won’t see those cases.
- His peers (he’s discussed with 15 of them) see the same thing he does but won’t speak out publicly. I see this in other areas such as school officials being afraid to reveal high rates of myocarditis in their schools. For example, Nikki Daniels, Head of School at Monte Vista Christian School, isn’t speaking out about the four myocarditis cases at their small private school (which translates into a rate of myocarditis that I’d estimate is more than 1 in 100).
- The mainstream media, mainstream medical community, and HHS agencies are all ignoring Hirschman and others like John Looney. Only alt-media has reached out to him to write an article.
- PolitiFact reached out to try to discredit him but ended up not writing an article presumably because they failed to find anything to attack him on.
- There is no other explanation for this that we can figure out. It pretty much has to be a novel injectable product, first used in 2021 that results in blood clots and is injected into well over 50% of the population. There is only one drug that fits that bill: the COVID vaccines.
- None of his embalmer friends who have seen the data are planning on getting any more COVID vaccine shots.
- Richard is not alone. See this compilation: People who would know.
- Fewer than 1% of people who get the shots will die. As Dr. Mike Yeadon points out in the comments below, whether you die or not is likely a combination of how well you “take up” and “replicate” the mRNA, how dangerous the batch is, and other factors.
Could it be caused by 5G?
A few people speculated it was caused by the 5G deployment in Alabama. No, that’s not it at all. Nothing has changed in the area around Hirschman. We checked.
Could these clots be caused by COVID?
The Politifact fact checker, Naseem Ferdowsi, has no medical experience at all. She sent a message on Feb 4, 2022 that she was told by an embalmer in Phoenix Arizona that “dark clots have been found in COVID victims long before vaccinations were available.”
There are several problems with hypothesis:
- The clots are white fibrous material (clearly the fact checker never actually viewed the video she was fact checking)
- The number of COVID deaths in Houston County where Richard works are miniscule. For example, the number of COVID deaths was 9 in January, yet Richard had 37 with these clots.
- The percentages do not make sense. Only a tiny fraction of all deaths in January are from COVID. If 65% of the deaths in Houston County in January 2022 were from COVID, that would be front page news.
- If these clots were caused by COVID, it’s highly likely someone would have spotted it before 2021 and done a similar video.
- Omicron has taken over as the dominant COVID variant in January across the country. Omicron doesn’t kill people. People die with Omicron, not from Omicron. Therefore, if it was COVID-related, the clots would be gone, not at an all-time high.
However, we all know what will happen, don’t we? I think we’ll soon see a PolitiFact article that these clots are caused by COVID.
Another clue that vaccinated people are dying at a higher rate than the unvaccinated
One commenter said “only 61% have received at least one of the jabs and 49% two jabs in AL.”
The implication is that you can’t have 65% of the deaths be from the jabs.
But that’s not true at all.
If 61% were vaccinated over all age groups, and the vaccine were completely safe, we’d expect that 61% of the people who died would be vaccinated.
Richard’s observation that 65% of the people who died had these clots simply means that the vaccine appears to be causing death at a higher rate than would be expected than if the vaccine was truly safe and effective.
The doubly jabbed are more likely to die so the bump from 49% expected to 65% suggests the jabs are killing people.
Estimating total number of people killed by the COVID vaccines from this data
Hirschman’s data is explosive because it establishes a relative proportion of people affected which we can then use to establish an absolute rate of death.
Is this definitive? No. It’s just another “sanity check” datapoint.
So let’s say the actual rate of vaccine-caused deaths is 40% of all deaths which is less than the 65% rate that Hirschman is seeing.
The CDC says around 65,000 people die a week. So that would be 26,000 people a week killed by the vaccine. He started noticing these deaths in May (they could have started sooner), so let’s just say it’s only been in the last 6 months to be conservative.
26 weeks *26,000 deaths/week=676,000 vaccine-related deaths.
That’s a lot of deaths. So you see why this observation is explosive.
Even if he’s off by 1000X, this vaccine is still too unsafe to be used in humans
But suppose Hirschman is mistaken by a factor of 1,000 and there were just 676 deaths. That makes these vaccines 3 times more deadly than the smallpox vaccine (which kills 1 in a million) and smallpox is deemed to be too unsafe to use.
So even under the most ridiculous assumptions, there is no other way to interpret this data than to conclude the vaccines are unsafe and should be stopped.
Nobody in mainstream media, academia, or HHS is interested in talking to Hirschman
With a 65% death rate, you’d think the CDC would be doing an active investigation on this to collect the data.
You’d also think that after his Jan 26 video, Hirschman would be contacted by the CDC, FDA, NIH, NY Times, CNN, Washington Post, and so on, wouldn’t you?
Nope.
Just the Stew Peters Show (Jane Ruby), the Epoch Times, PolitiFact, and Steve Kirsch’s Newsletter.
Nobody from mainstream academia reached out to him for tissue samples to analyze or to write up his results in a paper that could be submitted to a medical journal so that it could be documented.
What can I say? They just do not want to know.
In January 2022, 65% of his embalming cases had this “problem” but nobody wants to look at it. Nobody!
I’m not surprised. They don’t want to learn the truth about these “vaccines.” They all just want to tell America one side of the story and censor any evidence that goes against that narrative.
Comments from Dr. Mike Yeadon regarding the mechanism of action
When assessing causality, one of the key criteria is a plausible mechanism of action. Here you go from Dr. Mike Yeadon.
Steve, I wish I was shocked, but none of us with an understanding that these gene based agents prompt our bodies to manufacture virus spike protein in uncontrolled amounts & in uncontrolled anatomical locations expected spike protein to do what it does in quantity: prompt blood to coagulate.
I’ve received the results of an informal survey conducted on behalf of a financial advisor to their client list. Questions included whether clients or their family members know someone who’s become very ill or died after vaccination & something like 2/3rds of respondents says they did. The results were sent to me to reinforce how commonplace these injuries & deaths are.
I personally know of four deaths and twice as many serious, not yet fatal illnesses after c19 “vaccinations”.
I know indirectly of two who were said to have been covid19 deaths. One was in their 80s & frail and the other, in their 60s, was living with a terminal cancer diagnosis.
Summary
The COVID vaccines are the largest clinical trial in world history.
What we have learned so far from the embalmers is troubling: it appears the vaccines have overtaken heart disease as the #1 leading cause of death in America today.
The CDC doesn’t have a clue it is happening. They still think that nobody has died from the vaccine. They refuse to look at the safety signals in VAERS and DMED. They don’t want to see any safety signals and they will not meet with anyone who challenges their point of view.
Death is one of many symptoms. Other side effects are a wide variety of cardiovascular, neurological, and autoimmune diseases, paralysis, loss of limbs, and potentially sterilization and AIDS. After a 90 day honeymoon period, vaccine efficacy turns negative. They also are known to increase cancers.
Stay tuned as we learn more in this clinical trial of the vaccines. I’m sure this isn’t the end of the story.
The California legislature is expected to mandate soon that everyone who works in California get vaccinated (AB 1993). This will increase the numbers and allow us to get the test results sooner. California is literally sacrificing its residents for the benefit of the rest of the country.
Although I live in California, I am self-employed. I suspect I will need to fire myself soon. I will not willingly comply with their law
RIP Freedom of Speech
In lockstep in multiple countries
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 12, 2022
As with so many things that are happening at the moment, the attack on free speech is happening in multiple countries at the same time.
Firstly in the UK.
A draft Online Safety Bill was first presented to Parliament in May 2021 but has been strengthened in the last few weeks. Originally the draft Bill focussed on large web companies but the government has recently announced that more changes would be made and new criminal offences added.
One of these new offences would be spreading Covid-19 disinformation under a crime of sending a false communication. This offence would be committed if a person sends a communication they know to be false with the intention to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological or physical harm. The maximum sentence is 51 weeks.
The average person might think it is reasonable to imprison somebody for communicating something they know to be false with the intention to cause harm. However, what is “false” and what is “harm”? The last few years have shown us that these are now very subjective topics. Information that was true in 2019 became false in 2020 and is starting to be true again in 2022. A truth that is communicated to somebody who believes it to be false may cause them emotional or psychological harm. Intention is necessary for the crime to take place but if something is deemed to be false and deemed to cause harm then it could be argued that if the person who communicated the information, knew the information was on the “harmful list” then intention was there.
And who is deciding what information is false? The government? That almost sounds like a punchline to a joke. We’ll just end up with news articles such as the one below – Sponsored by the UK Government (see the text in blue).
The Bill was already censorial enough, making online companies remove content which was deemed to be harmful but not illegal. As we have seen in recent times, corporations’ misinformation policies have been arbitrary enough, which will only worsen with governments deciding what is true and what is false. Now, in a step one-removed from pre-crime, these companies will be made to proactively “prevent people being exposed in the first place”.
The government press release on the strengthening of this bill says that “to proactively tackle the priority offences, firms will need to make sure the features, functionalities and algorithms of their services are designed to prevent their users encountering them and minimise the length of time this content is available. This could be achieved by automated or human content moderation, banning illegal search terms, spotting suspicious users and having effective systems in place to prevent banned users opening new accounts”.
In almost Orwellian double-speak the press release says the Bill “will better protect people’s right to free expression online”. What this means is, it will better protect people’s free expression of government approved material. It continues by saying “it will have to be proven in court that a defendant sent a communication without any reasonable excuse and did so intending to cause serious distress or worse, with exemptions for communication which contributes to a matter of public interest”. So the government says something is a matter of public interest (e.g. vaccines) and suddenly intention doesn’t have to be proven.
Please sign this online petition to remove requirements that specifically target lawful speech from the Bill.
Next to the US.
At almost the same time, the US sent out a bulletin “Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland”.
This states that “the United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence”.
According to the bulletin, “the proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions” has “increased the volatility, unpredictability, and complexity of the threat environment”.
Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include “widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19”.
Furthermore, “as COVID-19 restrictions continue to decrease nationwide, increased access to commercial and government facilities and the rising number of mass gatherings could provide increased opportunities for individuals looking to commit acts of violence to do so, often with little or no warning. Meanwhile, COVID-19 mitigation measures—particularly COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates—have been used by domestic violent extremists to justify violence since 2020 and could continue to inspire these extremists to target government, healthcare, and academic institutions that they associate with those measures”.
So in a step up from the UK’s response, the US is labelling individuals who produce any MDM as terrorists. Obviously, any language that incites violence is unacceptable but to confuse people encouraging unrest with those discussing whether Ivermectin could help save lives is completely unacceptable.
And finally in Canada.
Again, as if in lockstep, Justin Trudeau is trying to revive his controversial Internet legislation bill. Once known as Bill C-10, to fool those unintelligent Covid deniers, it has been changed to Bill C-11.
There are concerns that the legislation could be used to censor social media. The government have denied this but experts hold the opposite view. Who to believe, hmmm? The Toronto Sun reports that Trudeau is using the current national tensions as a smokescreen to let them slip in unpopular pieces of legislation. Never let a good crisis go to waste!
When we remove freedom of speech and censorship of controversial topics becomes common place, we turn into a dangerous society. Not only can authors be imprisoned for airing their views but, just as importantly, debate becomes restricted resulting in truths being hidden and novel and radical ideas supressed.
But if they can’t censor you, maybe they’ll just give you a morality pill so you don’t produce the stuff in the first place!
The Pfizer clinical trial in kids under age 5 has now failed TWICE
By Toby Rogers | February 12, 2022
On December 17, 2021, Pfizer announced that the clinical trial of its mRNA shot in kids under age 5 had failed. Rather than withdraw this product, Pfizer “amended” its clinical trial to add a third dose. So Pfizer kept the original trial going and subjected these little kids to yet another shot of genetically modified mRNA.
The drug dealers at the FDA said, ‘sounds great, let’s proceed with authorization even in the absence of data.’ That created a huge public backlash as parents rightly protested that the FDA should not approve a drug for kids that failed in a clinical trial.
Yesterday (Feb. 11, 2022), the FDA was forced to admit defeat and Pfizer pulled its Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) application to inject kids under age 5.
Pfizer and the FDA claimed that they were “waiting for more data” that would be available in early April. We now know that this was a lie.
Buried deep in an article on page A13 of the NY Times this morning we learned the real reason why Pfizer withdrew its EUA — the clinical trial had failed, again.
Remember, Pfizer kept the clinical trial going after December 17. So between then and yesterday’s announcement, there was now roughly 55 more days worth of data. And it was truly terrible.
From the NY Times :
Then, late on Thursday [Feb. 10], Pfizer alerted the F.D.A. that it had more recent data, from mid-January on, showing a more discouraging picture as the Omicron variant bore down. The new data revealed that two doses were not sufficiently effective in preventing symptomatic infection.
Read that again. They have the data. And the data show that this shot does not work.
But even here, I think there is reason to believe that they are still lying. We already knew that “two doses were not sufficiently effective” — Pfizer announced that in December. The “more recent data, from mid-January on” is not the two dose regimen anymore, that phase of the trial is finished.
I think there is every reason to believe that this is now the three dose trial that they are describing. If the three dose trial was on track and showing promising results, they would have proceeded with authorization. So now we likely have the first evidence that the three dose trial has failed as well.
(Here’s my math: Pfizer likely injected the third dose into these kids between Dec. 17 and mid-January. So “from mid-January on” (to Feb. 10) is looking at the data in the 25 days after the third injection. In the comments, please let me know if you interpret this differently.)
So it is definitely NOT the case that this is just an incomplete trial that they are waiting to finish up in early April. All of the existing data is bad. Pfizer is now scrambling to find ways to save this product even though the clinical trial has now failed twice. And what’s Pfizer’s plan going forward — to just hope that the data in the next 60 days (from now through early April) magically turns the corner!? Talk about wishful thinking!
Just when I think the cartel and its enablers in the mainstream media could not possibly get any more cynical they sink to new lows.
Janet Woodcock and Peter Marks at the FDA must be fired and prosecuted for reckless endangerment of children. Pfizer must stop this grotesque clinical trial immediately and permanently suspend any plans to inject genetically modified mRNA into children under 5. Anything less is savagery and barbarism.
Bank freezes Freedom Convoy donations
RT | February 12, 2022
The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) has announced that it will not be handing over $1.4 million in donations to the Freedom Convoy, and is planning to surrender the money to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice instead.
Speaking to Canada’s CTV News on Friday, a representative for the top 10 North American financial institution revealed that “TD has asked the court to accept the funds, which were raised through crowdfunding and deposited into personal accounts at TD.” Approximately $1 million is the money raised for the Canadian truckers and not refunded by GoFundMe, and the other $0.4 million is made up of direct donations. The bank said it was applying to entrust the funds with the authorities in the hope that “they may be managed and distributed in accordance with the intentions of the donors, and/or to be returned to the donors who have requested refunds but whose entitlement to a refund cannot be determined by TD.”
Freedom Convoy lawyer Keith Wilson is vowing to put up a legal fight to “have the restrictions on the donated funds lifted as soon as possible.”
This is not the first time the Freedom Convoy has had its donations frozen, with GoFundMe announcing earlier this month that it would not hand over $9 million out of the $10 million raised for the movement. As justification for the move, the crowdfunding platform cited Canadian police reports of “violence and other unlawful activity” by the protesters. GoFundMe was initially planning to send the money to charities instead, but then decided to refund the donations.
The truckers switched to Christian fundraising platform GiveSendGo shortly afterwards. However, the Ontario Superior Court announced on Thursday that it would be freezing funds coming from GiveSendGo accounts. The court sided with Ontario’s attorney general, who claimed the money would be used to further a criminal act.
GiveSendGo responded by saying the Canadian court’s order does not apply to it, with money still being raised for the protesters.
With donations to the movement being seized on multiple occasions, the truckers are now turning to cryptocurrencies. According to a video posted by the truckers on Facebook, by Friday, they had already raised $913,000 in Bitcoin. The Ottawa police are apparently aware of the new fundraising strategy, mentioning it in documents filed in an Ontario court. The Canadian authorities are, however, yet to outline any steps to counter the move.
Freedom Convoy activists have been protesting in downtown Ottawa since January 29, as well as blocking a number of border crossings to the US. Their main complaint regards Covid vaccine mandates for truckers who cross the border – though their demands have expanded to include calls to ditch all Covid restrictions and for Justin Trudeau’s government to resign.
On Friday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford declared a state of emergency in the province, urging the protesters to “end these occupations and go home.”
Reports of Deaths, Injuries After COVID Vaccines Climb Steadily
By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | February 11, 2022
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,103,893 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 4, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
The data included a total of 23,615 reports of deaths — an increase of 466 over the previous week — and 188,135 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 4,824 compared with the previous week.
Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 753,482 adverse events, including 10,747 deaths and 70,746 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Feb. 4, 2022.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 10,747 U.S. deaths reported as of Feb. 4, 18% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 23% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 60% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 541.5 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Feb. 4, including 318 million doses of Pfizer, 205 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Feb. 4, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
- 7,724 adverse events, including 170 rated as serious and 3 reported deaths.
The most recent death involves a 7-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1975356) from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when she was found unresponsive by her mother. An autopsy is pending.
- 16 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
- 29 reports of blood clotting disorders.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Feb. 4, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
- 28,793 adverse events, including 1,651 rated as serious and 38 reported deaths.
The most recent deaths involve a 13-year-old male (VAERS I.D. 2042005) from an unidentified state who died from a sudden heart attack seven months after receiving his second dose of Moderna, and a 17-year-old female from an unidentified state (VAERS I.D. 2039111) who died after receiving her first dose of Moderna. Medical information was limited and it is unknown if an autopsy was performed in either case.
- 68 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
- 629 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 617 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
- 155 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Feb. 4, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
- 19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
- 54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
- The average age of death was 72.6.
- As of Feb. 4, 5,038 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 1,615 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
- Of the 3,531 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 51% were attributed to Pfizer vaccinations, 40% to Moderna and 8% to J&J.
- 858 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), with 40% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 30% to Moderna and 28% to J&J.
- 2,316 reports of anaphylaxis where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
- 1,576 reports of myocardial infarction.
- 12,981 reports of blood clotting disorders in the U.S. Of those, 5,780 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 4,627 reports to Moderna and 2,527 reports to J&J.
- 3,950 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with 2,427 cases attributed to Pfizer, 1,343 cases to Moderna and 169 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Pfizer and BioNTech delay request to authorize vaccine for children under 5
Pfizer and BioNTech announced today they are delaying their request to the FDA to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine for children under five years old, citing not enough data on the efficacy of a third dose.
The FDA said its advisory panel meeting scheduled for next week will be postponed. Pfizer was originally expected to publish an analysis of its data today.
Pfizer said it will wait for its data on a three-dose series of the vaccine — expected in April — because it believes three doses “may provide a higher level of protection in this age group.”
Pfizer said in December 2021 that two doses of its Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine failed to generate a strong immune response during its clinical trial of children ages 2 to 4.
For children aged 6 months to 5, Pfizer’s vaccine has a dosage of 3 micrograms. For children ages 5 to 11, the dosage is 10 micrograms.
Despite the results of its trial, the company asked the FDA this month to authorize these first two doses, with a plan to submit additional data in the coming weeks on a third dose, NBC reported.
As The Defender reported Wednesday, some experts speculate the push to expand the authorization to the younger age group would lay the groundwork for subsequently folding COVID shots into the childhood vaccine schedule — thereby ensuring “liability protection forever.”
6-year-old gets myocarditis, can’t walk, after receiving COVID vaccine
Milo Edberg, 6, has been intubated and hospitalized since receiving his COVID vaccine on Dec. 10, Alpha News reported.
Edberg’s mother, Carrie, said her son was at M Health Fairview’s Masonic Children’s Hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota for a minor procedure when a doctor recommended he receive the COVID vaccine.
Carrie said she followed the advice of her doctor, who told her the vaccine was “safe and harmless.”
“I went against my gut and said OK, do it,” she said.
Carrie said the evening after receiving the shot, her son was gasping for air. She dialed 911. Edberg was transported back to the hospital, was intubated and diagnosed with myocarditis.
He was “perfectly fine and then he wasn’t,” Carrie said. He was “eating on his own [but] now he can’t even swallow his saliva.”
Doctors have no answers and cannot explain her son’s affliction, Carrie said. They haven’t even been able to provide a timeline for when her son might return home or whether he will regain any quality of life — and they “won’t bring up the vaccine” when discussing Edberg’s situation.
Carrie filed a VAERS report in January and said her son received a 10-15 minute visit from an infectious disease specialist who said they would file a report with the CDC and and Pfizer early in his hospital stay. She has heard nothing since.
The CDC maintains most cases of myocarditis after COVID vaccines are “mild” and patients recover quickly.
Not all doctors agree. As Dr. Steven Pelech of the University of British Columbia explained last August:
“Contrary to what a number of people have said, there is no such thing as ‘mild myocarditis.’ It’s the destruction of the myocytes, the heart cells that contract. When those cells die, they are not replaced in your body and are instead replaced by scar-tissue, which is from fibroblasts — skin cells which don’t have contractile activity …Every time you get an inflammatory response, you lose more of that contractility and have a greater chance of heart attack and other problems later in life.”
A New Zealand writer observed that “mild” clinical manifestations in the present are meaningless for interpreting longer-term risks.
Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans with gadolinium contrast — capable of showing “damaged heart areas undetectable by any other means” — studies of children and adolescents who developed myocarditis following COVID vaccination revealed, in the vast majority, a “potentially poor prognosis despite the heart seeming to have returned to normal.”
Kansas woman died from allergic reaction to Moderna’s COVID vaccine
Jeanie Evans, 68, of Effingham, Kansas, died of “anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccination,” according to her autopsy report acquired by the Topeka Capital-Journal.
Evans died March 24, 2021, one day after her first dose of Moderna’s vaccine.
According to the autopsy report, Evans said her airway felt blocked about 15 to 20 minutes after she received her first dose on March 23, 2021. She was taken by ground ambulance at 5:21 p.m. to Stormont-Vail hospital, where she died at 11:55 a.m. the next day.
Evans had a medical history of hypertension, environmental allergies, allergic disorders and reactive airway disease. She previously experienced an anaphylactic reaction to the drug Albuterol, the report said.
Colt Umphenour, one of Evans’ sons, said the family plans to file a lawsuit.
Denmark officials see no reason to continue COVID vaccine program
Health authorities in Denmark announced Friday they are considering “winding down the entire general vaccination program later in the spring.”
According to the Associated Press, officials see no reason to administer a booster dose to children or a fourth shot to residents at risk of severe COVID.
The Danish Health Authority said in a statement the third wave of COVID was waning “due to the large population immunity,” and the country can cope with increasing infection without getting serious illness.
The agency said it would continue to follow the epidemic closely should there be a fourth spring wave or new worrying variants.
Denmark ended most of its pandemic restrictions earlier this month after officials said they no longer considered COVID “a socially critical disease.”
Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Featured Video
Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
The Greatest Threat to World Peace? A Review of Daniele Ganser’s ‘USA: The Ruthless Empire’
Review by Marilyn Langlois | November 10, 2023
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Argentina’s Javier Milei sells out his country for Israel
- Putting Nukes in Finland Won’t Make Country Safer, Finnish Politician Cautions
- Ukrainian drone strike kills worker at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant
- What the West Hides About Soviet Role in De-Colonization
- Villains of Judea: Douglas Feith
- US pension fund invests hundreds of millions in weapons firms supplying Israel
- US bill to grant Americans serving in Israeli army same rights as US troops
- What a president, a movie star, a congressman, and a cell phone all dared to say
- ‘An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership’: Merz
- Pakistan Throws Open Its Gates for Iran’s Transit Trade to Third Countries
- If Americans Knew
- Palestinians in Gaza Want to Rebuild Food Systems. Israel Isn’t Letting Them.
- Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel
- Sheep Theft Sent Shockwaves Through a Palestinian Village. Then, a 12-year-old Boy Was Shot Dead
- Trump alum helps Israel mount AI influence campaign
- Dispatches From Catastrophe
- Despite Denials, AIPAC Is Now Funding Campaign of Ala Stanford In Philadelphia
- Israel’s neighbors are irate about its treatment of religious sites
- Israel escalates in Gaza: killing, torture, hunger – Daily Update
- Six Months into Gaza Ceasefire, Setting the Record Straight About Aid
- ‘Silent suffering’: Why children in Gaza are losing their ability to speak
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
Aletho News 